Reparations for blacks

Scarlette --

I can certainly understand where you and many
others are coming from here. It would not be
easy to decide. But it is likely that if reparations
were made, it would not be based upon what
someone looks like; rather, it would be based
upon proven ancestry.

This would leave many deserving people out,
by all means, because of the lack of historical
proof, whether purposely hidden or acccident-
ally destroyed by disasters and war. Things
are not always fair, unfortunately.

To look at me, one would not automatically
know that I have a slave in my history. Many
people from a good, solid, black ancestry do
not "look" black. What one looks like would
be a poor way to assess them. If this were it,
one of my pastors, who is Jewish, has two
daughters who are black. This would put them
in line to receive reparations, but they should
not; they were adopted and brought to the
states from Ethiopia as toddlers.

 

Oh, and may I add that I am not looking for
reparations. I have suffered NOTHING as a
result of my ancestry, having grown up looking
white, thinking I was white, and having all the
benefits of being white. The man in my ancestry
was far enough back that I did not even know
about him until I saw his photo and name in a
family history book. I am more Chocktaw and
Chickasaw than black, but I have sought nothing
from the government for reparations for that. I
don't believe I deserve anything for these things.

 

How in the world is it a "conservative" view that we should take money from one group who had nothing to do with slavery and give it to people who were never slaves?
All citizens of the US inhierit the problems that the US created. The reprecussions of slavery 150 years ago is no exception.

Sounds like more of the same old liberal redistribution of wealth ideology to me. Oh, then I'm not a true conservative according to you. Hmmm. You therefore must have the idea that liberal thinking is wrong, and conservative thinking is right. Well, this issue is not about liberal or conservative, it's about what's right and wrong. Reparations payment is the right thing to do. Therefore, by your reckoning, since it's the right thing to do, it's the conservative thing to do. For the records, I had nothing to do with the Japanese interment camps, since I wasn't born until the 60's. But my tax dollars paid out reparations to them, supported by our conservative president Ronald Reagan. I supported it then and I support it in regards to slavery reparation.

Personally, I'm all for making reparations to slaves...Unfortunately, they're all dead.
Then they should be paid to anyone who can reasonably prove lineage to a slave, regardless of skin color. Hey, you might get some white republicans who benefit if they had any slavery lineage.

 

Ah ha! Busted!

A touchy subject indeed.

I'd still like to know where do you stop/draw the line? I you agree to reparate (a word??) the descendants of a group of people for wrongs committed against their ancestors..where does it stop? The world/history is full of such injustices.

-kman

 

Kman --

And in just what way am I, as you so blithely put
it, "busted"? Wwhen you make such a sztatement,
at least say what the person wrote that is wrong.

 

It was a joke. My apologies. I put 2 winky faces so you wouldn't take it seriously!



-kman

 

Kman --

The system willl not allow me to copy your post,
but regarding making reparations to those whom
we have wronged, if it had stopped with slavery,
like you, I might throw my hands to the sky and
say, "What can we do?" But in a previous post,
I mentioned some of the things that have gone
on in my lifetime, which Ii have seen with my own
eyes. These things ought to be taken care of.

There are those here who bring the Bible into
this mix, claiming that whites should be forgiven
for what we did. I agree! WE SHOULD!!!! But
that same Bible teaches, time and again, the
principle of restitution. For those of you who do
not like, believe, or teach the "Old Teswtant," it
is repeated in the "New Testament."

 

Gotcha, Kman -- now!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Well, my system will not allow me to answer
your post below, Kman, so I will answer it there.
"We" means whites and others who participated
in slavery in the U.S. as well as those who parti-
cipated in the unfair usuery I mentioned in other
posts. When we make reparations in our country,
we pay through taxes. When we pay through
taxes, I reecognize that color and/or ancestry
make no difference as to where the tax comes
from, so I recognize the round-about way it
would come to the right hands. I also recognize
both the abuses of this system and the possible
abuses on the receiving end. I, being mostly
white, owe, regardless of my ancestry.

I suppose there are those who willl claim that the
southern states, then, are the ones who owe. But
the North was not innocent--not by a long stretch!
Besides, it was the North which stood in the way
of cessation, so we alll owe this together. To put
the burden upon the South would be unconscion-
able.

Believe me, it Scares Me to think of what we owe,
to think of paying it, think of the hardship, but it
scares me far more to stand before our God and
hear Him say that we fought against restitution
for the wrongs done. Those descendants of the
slaves would have been far better off had the
slaves ever been treated fairly and given what they
were promised, I am sure that no one can deny.
For us to support our government in renegging on
a promise is sinful.

Restitution is rarely comfortable. Believe me--I
know!

[ September 05, 2002, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

You use the words "we have wronged" and "for what we did".

Who exactly are the "we" here?

-kman

 

(See addition to post above.)

 

I'm not sure how this justifies taking money from one group who were never slave owners and, in many cases, whose ancestors may have been anti-slavery to pay off another group who were never slaves and whose ancestors, in some cases, may have been active participants of the slave trade.

On this particular issue, no, but not just according to me, but acording to the whole of conservative ideology.

I don't know of one conservative, libertarian or classical liberalist philosopher who ever supported redistribution of wealth.

I may be wrong in that (and you are certainly welcome to name one if you can think of one) but I can't think of any.

Absolutely. That's why I am one.

Absolutely. It's dead wrong to take money away from one group who had nothing to do with the slave trade to give to another group who were never slaves just to assuage your white guilt.

You havenn't demonstrated that it's the right thing to do.

Your reasoning is just a wee bit circular, don't you think?

I had nothing to do with internment either but the big difference here is that many of those interned were still alive when these payouts were made.

These were direct reparations to the actual offended parties.

In the case of reparations for slavery, the offended parties are all dead.

So are those who committed the attrocities against them.

Mike

[ September 05, 2002, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Smoke_Eater ]

 

Smoke Eater --

I notice that we dance around one another
without really touching. If it is accidentaly on
your part, it is not on mine. 8o) My brothers
would BOTH agree with you. 8o)

What I like about some -- you and, apparently
my "opponent" here, is that some can debate
and become even quite irate about the subect
but not take it out on the one they are debating.

 

Well, what about the blacks in Africa who sold blacks from Africa into slavery? Liberia is one place that happened. (It is still going on today.) Do they have to pay?

For American taxpayers to have to pay reparations, it won't be just white Americans paying. It will be Black Americans paying, Chinese Americans paying, Arab Americans paying, Japanese Americans paying, Hispanic Americans, all the different ethnic groups will be paying as taxpayers. Or is it just going to be white taxpayers who pay? What about taxpayers who are only partly white? Will they have to pay? What about Native Americans, will they have to pay?

And who is going to end up with the BIGGEST amount of LOOT? THE LAWYERS! That's who.

On the other hand, it could be rightfully pointed out (no tomatoes, please), that the slave owners who lost slaves (which were regarded as property to them), should be reimbursed for the loss of that property. Their descendants could rightfully make a case for reparations for that.

In fact, women weren't allowed the right to vote in America for how many years? Perhaps all descendants of women (especially female descendants) should get some sort of punitive reparations for all those lost years.

This whole reparations idea is absurd. It's just another case of somebody wanting something for nothing, and lawyers standing in line to reap the bounty. What do they get 1/3? Or is it more?

 

Oh, SheEagle! You can't be serious! I just wrote
a post in which Idenounced people who bring up
the fact of their own people selling blacks as
slaves, saying that this is no reason for
Americans to have joined in their sin. My post
was lost, but really! SheEagle, I would expect
better of you!

Well, anyway, I did not read your whole post yet,
but I read Psalm's above.

The Bible, in no way, condones the slavery
espoused in the U.S. Biblical slavery of fellow
Hebrews was for indebtedness, and when
Yavel (or Jubilee) came around, they were set
free. The Bible also had other specific rules for
how to treat the slaves, which were not followed
for the greatest part.

I am certainly not an expert on biblical slavery
when it came to enslaving those who were not
Hebrews, but let's look at this realistically: The
U.S.A. is NOT Israel! Most Christians ignore
the "Old Testament"' until it suits their argument,
claiming, "Grace! Grace!" Was pre-Civil War
U.S.A. under grace? Were slaves under grace?
Ffor such, were the "Old Testament" laws for
slavery repeated in the "New Testament"?

Further, our Constitution guaranteed people
freedom and equal rights. Sure, they twisted
the words for a while in order to allow slavery,
but indeed, they had to twist them hard. And in
the end, our government had to admit that those
who were brought in as slaves deserved citizen-
ship, as did their descendants.

[ September 05, 2002, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

[ September 05, 2002, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

A few verses to enforce this point:

1Ti 1:9-10 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Here is what Robertson has to say about the word "menstealers"(Word Pictures):

Men-stealers (andrapodistaiv). Old word from andrapodizw (from anhr, man, pouv, foot, to catch by the foot), to enslave. So enslavers, whether kidnappers (men-stealers) of free men or stealers of the slaves of other men. So slave-dealers. By the use of this word Paul deals a blow at the slave-trade (cf. Philemon).

So the bible condemns the slave trade that brought slaves to the Colonies/America since most if not all of those people were "kidnapped".
How can anyone argue that slavery in the Colonies/America was ok when it was founded upon such ungodly practices?

Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

I wonder how many people who think slavery wasn't so bad would like to take their families and exchange places with a slave family back in 1830.
Opps...sorry...your sons got sold off to the plantation down the river...wow...better watch out..the master has his eyes on your wife...etc ..etc ..etc ..etc

-kman

[ September 05, 2002, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: kman ]

 

Oh, yes! I think most here have read Philemon.

And I think most here know of the few slaves
who, for whatever reason, chose to stay on.
I am just confused as to what that has to do
with our discussion.